Neville v Foundation Constructors Background Steve Neville et al. (“Neville”) are the assignees of US Patent Nos 7914236 and 9284708 directed to foundation piles. The claimed foundation piles include an “end plate having a substantially flat surface disposed perpendicular to the centerline of the tubular pile,” or, “an end plate closing the second end of […]
Egenera v Cisco Background Egenera sued Cisco in the US District Court of Massachusetts alleging that Cisco’s servers infringe US patent number 7,231,430 (“the ‘430 patent”). Prior to claim construction and alongside an IPR proceeding, Egenera petitioned the USPTO to remove an inventor from the ‘430 patent. According to Egenera, this change was necessitated by […]
Topps-Co.-v.-Koko_s-Confectionery-Nov…d-10990-S.D.N.Y, August 27, 2020 Background The Topps Company (“Topps”) is the owner of US Patent No. US6660316, directed to a candy product having the commercialized embodiment “Juicy Drop Pop” (“JDP”): Claim 1 of the ‘316 patent recites, in pertinent part: A packaged candy product, comprising: a housing including a front face and a back face, […]
Apple v Prepear Notice of Opposition Apple has filed an opposition to the registration of a trademark application for an image of a pear, as used in connection with a meal preparation app. Apple claims that the mark, shown side by side below with Apple’s mark, is likely to cause confusion and/or dilute Apple’s famous […]
Valentino Rockstud OA, Valentino Response Valentino filed three trademark applications (US App. Ser. Nos. 88/672,186; 88/672/019 and 88/672225) directed to different aspects of their Rockstud® shoes. Specifically, Valentino claimed that the pyramid shaped metallic studs, as applied to the t-strap and collar of a shoe, had acquired distinctiveness over the previous 5 years of commercial […]
Thaler v Iancu, filed 8/6/2020 In his complaint, Stephen Thaler states that the rejection of two patent applications naming DABUS as inventor and Thaler as Applicant “create a novel substantive requirement for patentability that is contrary to existing law and at odds with the policy underlying the patent system.”
USPTO_aapa_guidance_memo Director Iancu issued a memo setting forth the USPTO’s interpretation of 35 USC 311(b) as it pertains to statements by the Applicant regarding prior art. In particular, Director Iancu states that “the basis” of every IPR must be “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Since admissions by Applicant regarding what is in […]
Blackbird v Fitbit Background Blackbird Tech owns US patent number 6,434,212 directed to a device that counts an individual’s steps. Based on the length and rate of those steps, the device provides information such as distance traveled and speed. Fitbit and Wahoo Fitness each sought an inter partes review of claims 2,5 and 6. PTAB […]
Alacritech v Intel Background Alacritech is the applicant of US patent number 8,131,880 (the ‘880 patent”) directed to apparatus for transferring packets to a host computer system. In particular, the claims of the ‘880 patent recite an apparatus that offloads certain network related processing tasks from a host computer’s CPU to an “intelligent network interface […]
Illumina v Ariosa rehearing “Method of preparation” claims survive §101 challenge at the Federal Circuit